- 


/ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/reportsonswamplaOOnort 


REPORTS 

f 


ON  THE 

% 


OP 


NORTH  CAROLINA 

BELONGING  TO  THE 

State  Board  of  Education. 


RALEIGH  : 

Ashe  &  Gatling,  State  Printers  and  Binders. 
Presses  of  Edwards,  Broughton  &  Co. 

1883. 


/ 


PREFACE. 


Frequent  applications  to  this  office  for  information  in 
reference  to  the  “Swamp  Lands”  of  the  State,  the  title  to 
which  is,  by  statute,  vested  in  the  State  Board  of  Education 
for  educational  purposes;  the  absence  of  such  information 
in  print  and  of  easy  reference,  and  the  desire  to  give  all  the 
facts  attainable  in  reference  to  said  lands  that  they  may  be¬ 
come  available  as  a  source  of  revenue  to  the  public  school 
fund,  lead  me  to  publish  this  pamphlet,  the  contents  of 
which  embrace  the  “Reports  on  the  Swamp  Lands  of  the 
State  ”  made  to  Governor  Worth  in  1867  by  Prof.  W.  C. 
Kerr,  State  Geologist,  and  by  WAlter  Gwynn  and  Gen.  W. 
G.  Lewis,  Agents  of  the  State  Board  of  Education  for  the 
“Swamp  Lands”;  and  by  Thos  H.  Allen,  Surveyor  to  the 
State  Board  of  Education  in  1869. 

JOHN  C.  SCARBOROUGH, 

State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction. 

Office  of  State  Superintendent 
of  Public  Instruction, 

Raleigh,  N.  C.,  April  9th,  1883. 


REPORT  ON  THE  SWAMP  LANDS 


BY 

W.  C.  KERR,  State  Geologist. 


rlo  His  Excellency,  Jonathan  Worth, 

Governor  of  North  Carolina  : 

Sir: — In  accordance  with  your  directions,  I  have  exam¬ 
ined  all  the  sources  of  information  accessible  to  me,  on  the 
subject  of  the  Swamp  Lands,  and  have  the  honor  to  submit 
the  following  report : 

The  first  suggestion  which  appears  on  record  in  regard  to 
the  improvement  of  the  Swamp  Lands,  was  made  by  Judge 
Murphy  in  his  well  known  “  Memoir  on  the  Internal  Im¬ 
provement  of  North  Carolina,”  in  1819.  The  first  action 
was  taken  on  the  subject  in  1822,  by  the  passage  of  a  law 
prohibiting  the  entry  of  such  lands,  with  a  view  to  “  ascer¬ 
tain  what  lands  of  that  description  yet  belonged  to  the  State, 
their  probable  extent,  and  the  cost  of  draining  them.”  In 
carrying  out  this  purpose,  the  Board  of  Internal  Improve¬ 
ment  “  instructed  the  civil  engineer,  Mr.  Fulton,  to  cause 
surveys  to  be  made  of  the  several  swamps  and  marshes.” 
A  report  was  made  by  Mr.  Fulton,  in  1823,  on  White  and 
Brown  marshes  in  Columbus  county,  but  on  account  of  the 
multiplicity  of  works  of  internal  improvements  then  in 
progress  requiring  the  supervision  of  the  State  Engineer, 
the  matter  seems  to  have  rested  here  until  1826,  when  an¬ 
other  act  of  Assembly  was  passed,  requiring  “  That  the  Board 
of  Internal  Improvement  shall  cause  to  be  surveyed  one 
or  more  of  the  large  swamps  or  marshes,  and  to  determine 


6 


Report  on  the  Swamp  Lands. 


whether  it  be  practicable  to  drain  either  or  all  of  them,  the 
probable  cost  of  such  drainage,  the  quality  of  the  land  that, 
by  such  drainage,  will  be  reclaimed  for  cultivation,  and  the 
quantity  of  vacant  land,  as  nearly  as  can  be  ascertained, 
and  to  report  whether  the  proprietors  of  such  lands  gener¬ 
ally  be  willing  to  contribute  a  reasonable  proportion  of  the 
cost  of  such  drainage”;  and  they  are  “authorized  to  raise 
by  way  of  lottery  $50,000  to  carry  into  effect  these  pro¬ 
visions.” 

Accordingly,  Mr.  Nash,  State  Engineer,  assisted  by  Mr. 
Brazin,  made  a  survey  of  most  of  the  lands  and  reported 
in  detail.  This  report,  made  in  1827,  represents  that 
“  nearty  all”  of  them  are  of  excellent  quality,  “susceptible 
of  cultivation,”  and  easily  drained  ;  and  estimates  their  quan  • 
tity,  conjecturally,  at  1,500,000  acres.  The  Board,  however, 
failed  to  raise,  in  the  manner  prescribed,  the  necessary  funds 
to  proceed  with  the  drainage.  In  their  report  for  that  year 
they  call  attention  to  the  difficulty  of  ascertaining  what 
lands  were  subject  to  entry  and  state  their  “  belief  that  there 
are  in  various  parts  of  the  State  a  number  of  valuable 
swamps  which  have  not  yet  come  to  their  knowledge,”  and 
suggests  further  legislation  on  the  subject. 

Although  the  law  constituting  the  Literary  Board  and 
vesting  in  them  the  title  to  the  Swamp  Lands  was  passed  in 
1825,  the  improvement  of  these  lands  was  still  left  in  the 
hands  of  the  Board  of  Internal  Improvement,  until  1833; 
when  the  former  board  made  their  first  report  on  the  subject. 
In  that  report,  after  reviewing  and  endorsing  the  opinions 
of  Mr.  Nasii  and  of  former  boards  as  to  the  great  value  of 
these  lands,  they  report  a  suggestion  made  by  the  Board  of 
Internal  Improvement  in  1827,  that  Matamuskeet  lake  be 
selected  for  an  experiment,  in  drainage,  on  account  chiefly 
of  the  supposed  extent  and  value  of  “  the  lands  which  would 
be  laid  dry  at  the  bottom  of  the  lake  ”  (estimated  at  “  00,000 
acres  and  very  rich  ”)  and  the  facility  and  cheapness  with 
which  its  drainage  could  be  effected. 


W.  C.  Kerr,  State  Geologist. 


7 


These  suggestions  and  those  of  the  Board  of  1827  were 
repeated  in  several  successive  biennial  reports  without  re¬ 
sult.  In  1835  the  committee  on  Education  report  adversely 
on  the  question  of  making  an  appropriation  to  drain  any 
of  the  Swamp  Lands,  “  deeming  it  highly  important  to  be 
first  informed,  not  only  as  to  the  costs  of  drainage  and  the 
quantity  of  land  to  be  reclaimed,”  but  also  “  whether  indi¬ 
vidual  proprietors  or  the  Literary  Fund”  would  be  most 
benefited  “by  the  particular  works  to  be  undertaken.” 

In  1837,  however,  the  subject  was  taken  up  de  novo,  and 
the  Literary  Board  was  remodeled  and  clothed  with  the 
necessary  authority  to  meet  and  overcome  all  the  difficulties 
which  had  rendered' fruitless  every  former  effort  to  utilize 
this  vast  property.  They  were  expressly  “invested  with  all 
powers  and  authority  necessary  and  proper  for  reclaiming 
the  swamp  lands  of  this  State  and  for  obliging  the  owners 
of  any  part  of  said  land  to  contribute  an  equitable  share  of 
the  expenses,  whenever  such  owners  are  benefited  b}7  the 
works  of  the  company ;”  and  it  was  further  required  as  had 
been  repeatedly  suggested  by  the  different  boards  in  former 
reports,  “  that  all  grants  and  deeds  for  Ssvamp  Lands,  hereto¬ 
fore  made,  shall  be  proved  and  registered  in  the  county 
where  such  lands  are  situate,  within  twelve  months  ”  upon 
penalty  of  forfeiture  ;  and  $200,000  were  appropriated  to  the 
use  of  the  Board,  in  carrying  out  these  provisions. 

Under  this  act,  the  Board  was  reorganized  in  March  of' 
the  same  year  and  proceeded  to  appoint  an  engineer,  C.  B. 
Shaw,  with  “  instructions  to  organize  a  corps  of  surveyors 
and  assistants,”  and  to  commence  operations  in  Hyde  county. 
Their  reasons  for  beginning  here,  in  addition  to  those  which 
have  been  mentioned  as  urged  by  the  Board  of-  Internal 
Improvement  in  1827,  are  given  in  their  report  the  follow¬ 
ing  year,  1828,  [38?]  They  observe  “  that  their  first  duty 
was  to  inquire  and  determine  what  lands  were  owned  by 
the  State,  entertaining  the  belief  that  large  bodies  had  been 
entered  by  individuals  and  the  grants  thereon  were  pur- 


8 


Report  on  the  Swamp  Lands. 


posely  withheld  from  registration  ;  this  inquiry  could  not 
be  satisfactoril}’  prosecuted  until  after  the  expiration  of  the 
twelve  months  allowed  by  the  act  of  the  last  session. 

It  was  ascertained,  however,  that  the  county  of  Hyde  did 
contain  a  large  body,  the  unquestioned  property  of  the 
State,  believed  to  be  fertile  and  susceptible  of  drainage,  and 
on  which  a  fair  and  thorough  experiment  might  be  made.” 
A  special  act  had  also  been  passed  appropriating  $8,000  for 
the  drainage  of  Mattamuskeet  lake.  This  last  work  was 
completed  in  1835  by  digging  a  canal,  seven  miles  long, 
from  the  lake  to  Ysocking  creek  ;  by  which  a  reduction  of 
three  and  a  half  feet  in  the  level  of  the  lake  surface  was 
effected. 

The  works  for  the  drainage  of  Pungo  and  Alligator  lakes 
were  also  commenced,  and  the  main  canals  from  these  lakes 
to  Pungo  river  were  located.  Mr.  Shaw  having  resigned, 
Maj.  Gwynn  took  charge  in  1S39,  and  completed  the  works 
in  1842,  at  “  an  expense  of  more  than  $170,000.”  Maj. 
Gwynn,  in  his  report  to  the  Board  in  1840,  estimated  the 
number  of  acres  drained  by  these  works  at  over  60,000,  and 
considered  them  “  unequalled  in  fertility’’,  by  any  lands  in 
the  State,”  worth  at  least  $6.00  per  acre,  making  an  aggre¬ 
gate  of  over  $360,000  for  this  single  tract.  The  best  of  these 
lands,  lying  on  the  canal  and  lake,  were  offered  for  sale  in 
1841,  but,  the  Board  report,  “  for  some  reason,  very  few  per¬ 
sons  attended  and  no  bids  were  made.”  In  their  report  for 
1842  they  call  the  attention  of  the  Legislature  to  certain 
claimants  under  old  titles,  “  who  have  defrauded  the  State 
by  failing  to  list  their  lands  for  taxation  for  years  together,” 
and  state  that  most  of  the  Swamp  Lands  were  in  this  con¬ 
dition,  and  also  complain  of  the  difficulty  of  ejecting  squat¬ 
ters,  who  generally  hold  under  some  ancient  grant  by  the 
State,  and  they  ask  further  legislation  on  these  points.  Ac¬ 
cordingly  another  act  of  Assembly  was  passed,  January  21, 
1843,  which  provided  “  that  any  person,  or  persons,  who  have 
heretofore,  at  any  time,  obtained  a  grant  or  grants  from  the 


W.  C.  Kerr,  State  Geologist. 


9 


State  for  any  Swamp  Lands  in  this  State,  and  who  have  not 
regularly  listed  the  same  for  taxation  and  paid  the  taxes  due 
thereon,  shall  lose  all  right,  title,  and  interest  in  the  said 
Swamp  Lands,”  unless  payment  shall  be  made  within  twelve 
months  of  all  arrearages  of  taxes  ;  and  also  “  that  in  all  suits 
at  law  for  any  Swamp  Lands  in  this  State,  to  which  the  Lit¬ 
erary  Board  shall  be  a  party,  the  title  to  said  land  shall  be 
deemed  to  be  in  said  Board  ”  until  the  other  party  shall 
“show  a  good  and  valid  title.” 

During  the  same  year,  a  joint  select  committee  being 
raised  for  the  purpose  of  “inquiring  into  the  value  of  the 
Swamp  Lands  in  Hyde  county,  reclaimed  by  the  Board,  the 
manner  in  which  the  money  appropriated  for  that  purpose 
had  been  expended,  and  the  propriety  of  continuing  the 
works  in  said  lands,”  and  of  “  making  a  road  from  the  re¬ 
claimed  lands  in  Pungo  to  the  Highlands  of  Washington 
county,”  after  an  investigation  by  three  men  of  their  selec¬ 
tion'  “judges  of  land,”  “  living  in  the  vicinity  of  the  public, 
works,”  reported  very  favorably  of  the  work  done  and  of  the 
character  of  the  land  reclaimed, — that  about  65,000  acres 
have  been  drained,  of  which  “10,000  are  equal  to  the  most 
fertile  lands  on  the  globe,  worth  in  the  worst  times  $10.00 
to  $15.00  per  acre,  and  that  in  the  end  the  State  will  have 
no  cause  to  regret  the  experiment,”  “yet  thej^  deem  it  inex¬ 
pedient  at  this  time  to  commence  any  new  work.” 

During  the  next  ten  years  after  the  completion  of  the 
drainage  of  the  Pungo  swamp,  the  Board  were  occupied  in 
fruitless  efforts  to  effect  a  sale  of  the  reclaimed  lands,  and  in 
controversies  with  trespassers  and  various  claimants  under 
old  titles  that  were  supposed  to  have  been  extinguished  by 
the  acts  of  1837  and  1843.  In  1850  these  laws  providing 
for  the  forfeiture  of  titles  for  non-registration  and  for  non¬ 
payment  of  taxes  were  declared  “applicable  to  such  Swamp 
Lands  only  as  had  been  surveyed  or  taken  possession  of  by 
the  Board.”  In  their  report  for  this  year,  they  describe  an 
attempt  which  had  been  made  in  1849  to  sell  out  the  drained 


10 


Report  on  the  Swamp  Lands. 


lands  at  auction,  which  resulted,  after  extensive  public  notice 
of  the  time  and  place  of  sale,  with  description  of  canals  and 
lands,  notwithstanding  the  personal  attendance  of  the  Board 
and  the  most  favorable  inducements  offered,  in  the  way  of 
long  credits,  &c.,  resulted  in  the  sale  of  a  “few  sections  val¬ 
uable  for  Juniper  timber,”  but  “  at  such  prices  as  compelled 
the  Board  to  stop  the  sale.” 

In  1852,  the  Board,  having  resumed  the  work  of  improv¬ 
ing  the  swamp  lands,  in  compliance  with  the  directions  of 
the  General  Assembly,  report  that  as  “  it  was  made  their 
duty  to  inquire  into  the  practicability  of  draining  the  Open 
Ground  Prairie  in  Carteret  county,”  and  $5,000  were  appro¬ 
priated  for  that  purpose,  “  should  the  Board  deem  it  advan¬ 
tageous  to  do  so;”  “some  of  the  members  of  the  Board 
having  visited  these  lands,  and  after  an  examination  of  them 
by  Prof.  Emmons  and  a  favorable  report  thereon  by  him,  the 
Board  determined  to  proceed  in  the  work  of  draining.”  This 
tract  had  been  reported  upon  very  favorably  by  both  the 
engineers  who  had  surveyed  it,  Mr.  Nash  and  Maj.  Gwjmn. 
The  work  was  accordingly  put  under  contract,  and  its  comple¬ 
tion  was  announced  in  1855.  It  consisted  of  a  canal  eight 
miles  in  length  from  Ward’s  creek  to  the  highest  part  of  the 
Open  Ground  and  transverse  ditches  at  this  point  to  drain  a 
square  mile.  These  lands  were  immediately  advertised,  aud 
a  “  portion  of  them  offered  for  sale  at  a  reduced  price  with 
a  view  to  having  the  same  tested  for  agricultural  purposes,” 
but  no  sales  were  effected.  (The  Board  afterwards  (18511) 
disposed  of  2,000  acres,  with  the  privilege  of  selection,  at 
twenty-five  cents  per  acre).  A  road  from  the  Pungo  lands 
to  the  Long  Acre  road,  Washington  county,  which  had  been 
commenced  several  years  previously,  under  the  auspices  of 
the  Board,  was  also  completed  in  1855,  at  a  cost  of  nearly 
$10,000.  This  road  was  constructed  by  order  of  the  General 
Assembly  for  the  purpose  of  making  the  reclaimed  lands 
more  accessible  to  purchasers  and  facilitating  their  sale. 

By  au  act  of  Assembly  of  this  year,  the  Board  were  au¬ 
thorized  to  appoint  an  agent,  whose  duty  should  be,  among 


W.  C.  Kerr,  State  Geologist. 


11 


other  things,  to  “  prepare  a  statement  of  each  tract  of  land 
owned  by  the  Board,  its  location,  quantity,  as  well  as  ascer¬ 
tained  and  probable  value,  distinguishing  between  those 
tracts,  the  title  to  which  is  doubtful  or  good.”  Mr.  G.  J„ 
Cherry,  of  Washington  county,  having  been  appointed  for 
this  purpose,  found  great  difficulty  in  executing  his  task, 
and  the  following  year  the  Board  report  that  “  it  has  been 
found  impossible  for  Mr.  Cherry  to  perform  all  the  duties 
required  of  him,  save  at  an  expense  greater  than  the  value 
of  the  land.”  They  also  report  that  a  Mr.  Keeling,  who  had 
purchased  of  the  Board  in  1849  a  piece  of  land  on  Pungo, 
having  “  entered  upon  it  and  proceeded  to  get  up  the  tim¬ 
ber,  an  action  of  trespass  was  brought  against  him  by  the 
Albemarle  Swamp  Land  Company,  claiming  under  grants 
of  an  old  date,  issued  by  the  State.”  “From  such  informa¬ 
tion  as  the  Board  has  upon  the  subject,”  says  the  report 
further,  “these  grants,  if  they  can  be  successfully  located,” 
will  “  cover  a  large  portion  of  the  land  claimed  by  the 
Board.”  “Our  predecessors  therefore  employed  counsel  to 
aid  in  the  defence  of  the  said  suit.  Owing  to  difficulties 
and  delays  in  procuring  a  trial,  the  whole  matter  was  re¬ 
ferred  to  Hon.  Thomas  Ruffin,  late  Chief  Justice  of  the 
State.  It  has  been  argued  before  him  by  counsel  but  as  yet 
he  has  not  announced  his  decision.”  “  It  was  agreed  that 
either  party  might  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  referee, 
and  it  is  probable,  therefore,  that  the  case  will  go  to  the  Su¬ 
preme  Court.” 

The  last  published  report  of  the  Literary  Board,  bearing 
date  1860,  has  this  general  statement :  “  The  Swamp  Lands 
belonging  to  the  Literary  Fund,  though  believed  to  be  of 
great  value,  have  for  many  years  past  yielded  but  an  incon¬ 
siderable  revenue,  not  enough  indeed  to  pay  the  expenses 
of  agents  to  look  after  them  and  prevent  trespassers  upon 
them.” 

Thus  it  appears  that  about  40  years  have  elapsed  since 
the  improvement  of  the  Swamp  Lands  was  commenced,  and 
more  than  $200,000  have  been  expended  in  surveys,  canals; 


12 


Report  on  the  Swamp  Lands. 


and  roads  for  this  purpose.  And  yet,  notwithstanding  the 
high  reputation  of  these  lands,  the  almost  uniformly  favor¬ 
able  opinion  which  has  been  given  of  them  by  successive 
Boards,  legislative  committees  and  engineers,  and  the  san¬ 
guine  expectations  which  have  been  so  long  indulged  in  re¬ 
gard  to  them,  the  Board  have  not  been  able,  after  repeated  and 
most  strenuous  efforts  and  the  dissemination  far  and  wide  of 
advertisements  and  favorable  reports,  to  realize  enough  to 
defray  the  current  expenses  incurred  in  the  care  and  man¬ 
agement  of  them  ;  and  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  the 
larger  part  of  the  small  income  derived  by  the  Board  from 
this  source  has  arisen  from  .the  sale  of  unimproved  Swamp 
Lands,  very  few  sections  of  the  “drained  lands”  having  been 
disposed  of,  and  those  chiefly  for  the  timber  and  at  a  price 
frequently  less  than  the  cost  of  their  drainage  ; — this  result, 
instead  of  an  income  of  §150,000,  as  anticipated  by  the 
president  of  the  Boa.rd  in  183S,  instead  of  ready  sales  at 
86,  §10,  §15,  and  §50  per  acre  as  so  often  and  so  confidently 
predicted. 

The  question  presses,  what  is  the  explanation  of  this  so 
unexpected  and  most  unsatisfactory  result?  It  must  be 
sought  in  the  facts  of  the  case  and  of  the  record. 

It  is  Important  to  remember,  in  this  connection,  two  or 
three  circumstances  likely  to  be  overlooked.  In  the  first 
place,  although  these  lands  through  which  canals  were  cut, 
are  generally  spoken  of  as  “  drained  lands,”  they  are  not  so 
in  fact.  The  channels  of  the  creeks  which  make  up  into 
these  swamps  were  carried  by  the  canals  to  connect  with  the 
lakes  which  occupy  their  highest  and  central  parts,  so  as  to 
reduce  the  waters  of  these  lakes  three  or  four  feet,  and  thus 
furnish  a  channel  way  to  carry  off  the  water  from  the  subor¬ 
dinate  farm  ditches.  The  land  is  not  actually  drained  but 
its  drainage  is  rendered  practicable.  Some  single  farms  on 
Mattamuskeet  have  probably  cost  more  to  drain  them,  after 
the  construction  of  the  main  canals,  than  the  seven  mile  canal 
made  by  the  State  for  the  drainage  of  that  lake.  Another 


W.  C.  Kerr,  State  Geologist. 


13 


unfavorable  circumstance  is  the  difficulty  of  access  to  this 
species  of  land.  The  Board  has  expended  more  than  $  12,000 
at  different  periods,  in  the  construction  of  roads  to  the 
Pungo  tract,  and  still  it  is  difficult  of  access,  both  by  land 
and  water.  And  so  are  the  so-called  drained  lands  of  Car¬ 
teret.  A  third  circumstance  which  has  operated  against  the 
sale  of  these  lands,  at  least  in  the  case  of  strangers,  is  the 
supposed  insalubrity  of  the  swamp  region  generally. 

The  controlling,  efficient  causes,  however,  to  which  it  is 
necessary  to  ascribe  the  signal  failure  of  all  attempts  to  make 
these  lands  available  for  the  purposes  of  revenue,  are  un¬ 
questionably  to  be  sought  in  the  character  of  the  titles  and 
of  the  soil.  It  is  not  certain  that  the  Board  holds  a  single 
acre  of  these  lands  by  an  undoubted  title.  It  may  be  profit¬ 
able  to  recapitulate,  in  order  to  bring  into  one  view  the 
facts  bearing  on  this  point.  Mr.  Nash,  who,  it  will  be  re¬ 
membered,  first  undertook  the  investigation  of  this  subject 
under  the  act  of  1827,  reported  to  the  Board  of  Internal 
Improvement  “There  are  no  means  at  present  of  ascertain¬ 
ing  the  quantity  of  vacant  land  owned  by  the  State.  Many 
large  tracts,  the  property  of  individuals,  have  been  trans¬ 
ferred  from  the  original  patentees  by  sale,  inheritance  or 
otherwise,  and  the  owners  at  this  day  are  not  easily  found.” 
And  in  reporting  a  surve}7  which  he  had  made  of  “a  large 
territory  about  the  Dismal  Swamp  Canal,”  he  says,  “these 
lands  were  supposed  to  be  the  property  of  the  State,”  “but 
various  persons  in  this  section  informed  me  that  these  lands 
were  surveyed  and  patented  at  an  early  period  previous  to  the 
Revolution,  &c.”  “  Under  these  circumstances  it  has  been 
thought  best  to  make  no  report  on  them  until  measures  shall 
be  taken  to  ascertain  whether  the  State  has  any  interest  in 
them.”  Of  the  Bay  river  tract,  after  estimating  its  area  at 
over  40,000  acres,  he  adds  in  a  note,  “Some  dormant  titles 
have  since  been  discovered  to  a  part  of  this  tract.”  And  in 
reference  to  those  large  bodies  of  Swamp  Land  lying  in  Car¬ 
teret,  Onslow  and  Jones,  containing  an  aggregate  of  more 
than  180,000  acres,  he  says,  “  the  whole  were  patented  by 


14 


Report  on  the  Swamp  Lands. 


Dayid  Allison,  but  have  since  reverted  for  non-payment  of 
taxes,”  and  Mr.  Brazin,  his  assistant,  has  the  same  remark 
about  Big  Swamp  in  Robeson  county.  This  reversion,  we 
shall  see,  is  more  than  doubtful.  In  their  report  for  1842, 
the  Literary  Board  state  “  that  most  of  the  Swamp  Lands  of 
this  State  were  granted  away,  years  ago,  to  individuals  and 
companies  in  very  large  surve}Ts,”  and  that  “  these  claimants 
had  abandoned  the  lands  or  their  titles,”  and  failed  to  pay 
taxes,  &c.  Under  this  description  they  would  include  no 
doubt  such  grants  as  the  following,  which  will  be  found 
registered  in  the  land  office,  viz :  195,  840  acres  to  J.  Hall 

on  Pungo  ;  170,  120  acres  to  three  parties  in  Brunswick,  in¬ 
cluding  Green  Swamp,  and  several  hundred  grants  to  D. 
Allison,  above  mentioned,  amounting  to  more  than  1,000,000 
acres, — all  of  which  were  issued  about  1794-’9o. 

In  1835  the  Committee  on  Education  report:  “Your 
committee  have  no  means  of  certifying  what  portion  of  the 
Swamp  Lands  are  claimed  by  such  titles.  This  can  only  be 
partially  ascertained  by  surveys  and  examinations  of  the 
Register’s  books  in  the  counties  in  which  they  are  situate.” 

In  the  report  of  the  Board  for  1846,  occurs  this  statement : 
“  An  agent  of  certain  persons  in  Pennsylvania,  styling 
themselves  the  North  American  Land  Company,  submitted 
to  the  Board  claims  of  title  to  a  large  part  of  the  Hyde 
county  lands,”  and  proposed  a  compromise  of  their  claims. 
This  being  declined  by  the  Board,  “  he  declared  his  intention 
to  bring  suit  in  the  Federal  Court,  as  soon  as  the  Board  should 
have  a  tenant  in  possession.”  It  does  not  appear  what  be¬ 
come  of  this  claim.  In  1849  originated  the  controversy 
with  the  Albemarle  Swamp  Land  Company,  involving,  the 
Board  observe,  “  their  title  to  a  large  portion  of  the  land  now 
and  heretofore  claimed  by  them.”  This  is  also  unsettled. 
And  these  two  claims  cover  that  part  of  the  Swamp  Lands, 
of  which  the  Board  had  spoken  in  1838  as“  the  unquestioned 
property  of  the  State,”  and  which  was,  for  that  reason,  se¬ 
lected  for  the  great  experiment. 


W.  C.  Kerr,  State  Geologist. 


15 


In  the  report  of  the  Board  for  1856,  it  is  stated,  that  “  our 
system  of  granting  iands  to  every  applicant,  prior  to  the 
transfer  of  the  Swamp  Lands  to  the  Literary  Fund,  and  the 
confusion  in  locating  grants,  which  have  generally  issued 
for  Swamp  Lands  without  any  actual  survey,  render  it  im¬ 
possible  for  any  man  to  determine  whether  the  title  of  the 
Board  is  clear  or  not  to  any  piece  of  land.” 

In  1857  a  claim  was  preferred  by  certain  parties,  profes¬ 
sing  to  have,  purchased  of  the  estate  of  David  Allison,  the 
title  to  the  Swamp  Lands  claimed  by  the  Board  in  Carteret 
and  Craven,  and  a  proposition  made  to  them  “  to  make  up  a 
case  and  submit  it  to  the  Supreme  Court.”  The  whole  matter 
was  referred  to  Mr.  B.  F.  Moore,  counsel  of  the  Literary 
Board.  And  it  may  be  mentioned  here,  that  these  Allison 
lands  are  also  claimed  by  the  University.  These  grants 
cover  more  than  half  a  million  acres  in  Carteret,  Craven, 
Onslow  and  Jones.  There  is  no  means  of  ascertaining  what 
proportion  of  them  are  Swamp  Lands,  but  probably  they  in¬ 
clude  all  that  the  Board  have  heretofore  claimed  in  those 
four  counties. 

The  history  of  these  claims  to  the  Carteret  and  neighbor¬ 
ing  tracts  seems  to  stgnd  thus:  David  Allison  took  out 
grants  for  them  in  and  about  1795.  He  died  in  1801.  The 
University  claims  under  the  laws  of  1789  and  1805.  But, 
whether  the  claim  was  good  or  not,  the  trustees  seem  not  to 
have  taken  possession.  In  1827  Mr.  Nash  made  the  report 
above  mentioned,  that  these  lands  had  “  reverted  for  non¬ 
payment  of  taxes.”  But  as  there  wras  no  law  to  that  effect 
until  that  passed  in  1843  at  the  solicitation  of  the  Board, 
this  is  of  course  a  mistake.  That  he  did  not  mean  to  say 
that  the  lands  had  been  sold  for  the  taxes  is  probable,  in  the 
first  place  from  the  fact,  that  he  does,  not  say  so,  but  says  a 
very  different  thing,  and  in  the  second  place,  from  the  fact 
that  the  Board  allow  this  statement  to  accompany  their  re¬ 
port  uncorrected,  which  they  would  not  probably  have  done 
if  they  had  been  in  possession  of  deeds  for  the  land  from 


16 


Report  on  the  Swamp  Lands. 


the  sheriff's  making  the  sales,  (and  that  this  does  not  happen 
from  inadvertence  is  evident  from  this  remark  on  the  subject 
which  occurs  in  the  report, — “  it  is  believed  that  the  sher¬ 
iffs  in  some  counties  have  failed,  when  lands  of  this  descrip¬ 
tion  have  been  struck  off  to  the  State  and  sold  for  taxes,  to 
make  a  deed  of  them  to  the  governor  as  required  by  law  ”) 
and*  in  the  third  place  from  the  fact  that  no  such  deed  (or 
deeds)  is  in  possession  of  the  Board,  or  is  anywhere  men¬ 
tioned  in  connection  with  any  of  the  various  controversies 
about  these  lands,  which  would  have  been  effectually  settled 
b}r  the  production  of  such  a  document. 

If  it  is  suggested  that  the  law  of  1837,  confiscating  such 
lands  for  non-registry,  or  that  of  1843,  for  non-payment  of 
taxes,  would,  in  auy  case,  put  the  Board  in  possession,  ex¬ 
cept  as  against  the  University,  two  things  are  to  be  remem¬ 
bered  per  contra, — first,  that  the  meaning  of  those  laws 
of  1S37  and  1843  was  greatly  restricted  by  the  subse¬ 
quent  enactment  of  1850,  declaring  their  provisions  “  ap¬ 
plicable  to  such  lands  only  as  had  been  surveyed  or  taken 
possession  of  by  the  Literary  Board,”  and  as  that  Board 


*It  seems  evident  that  the  Literary  Board,  as  here  argued,  were  not 
aware  of  the  existence  of  such  deeds.  But  after  several  ineffectual  attempts,  I 
have  at  last  succeeded  in  finding  in  the  land  office  sheriffs’  deeds  for  390,704 
acres  of  the  Allison  lands  in  Carteret,  Onslow  and  Jones,  and  58,240  acres  in 
Brunswick  and  Columbus  on  both  sides  of  the  Waccamaw,  including  Cow  Cow 
Swamp.  And  besides  these  are  other  deeds  of  lands  which  have  been  sold  for 
taxes,  in  New  Hanover  44,160  acres,  patented  by  Daniel  Wheaton,  (this  con. 
stitutes  a  portion  of  Holly  Shelter  Swamp),  in  Tyrrell  more  than  100,000  acres 
patented  by  different  parties,  and  still  others  in  Robeson,  Moore  and  other 
eastern  counties,  amounting  in  the  aggregate  to  not  less  than  three-quarters  of 
a  million  acres.  And  is  probable,  as  intimated  above  by  the  Board,  that  other 
of  these  Allison  lands  have  been  sold  (or  ought  to  have  been)  for  the  taxes  and 
the  deeds  have  not  been  forwarded.  In  order  to  ascertain  how  much  of  the 
above  lands,  thus  sold  for  taxes  and  deeded  to,  the  State  by  the  sheriffs,  belongs 
to  the  Literary  Board,  it  will  be  necessary  to  ktiow,  1st,  what  portion  of  them 
are  swamp  lands,  and  2nd,  what  portion  has  been  re-entered  prior  to  1S22,  these 
tax  sales  having  occurred  about  1S00. 


W.  C.  Kerr,  State  Geologist. 


17 


have  surveyed  only  the  Pungo  tract  and  the  Open  Ground 
Prairie,  (the  other  surveys  having  been  made  by  the  Board  of 
Internal  Improvement,  in  1823,  ’7  and  ’8,)  and  as  it  is  not  ap¬ 
parent  what  other  act  of  possession  they  have  performed, 
this  declaratory  act  amounts  to  a  repeal  (except  as  to  these 
two  tracts),  and  second,  these  acts  are  regarded  by  very  high 
authority  as  unconstitutional  and  invalid  from  the  beginning. 
So  that  in  any  case  the  Board  are  thrown  back  upon  such 
claims  only  as  is  vested  in  them  by  the  original  act  of  1825. 
And  then,  as  to  these  lands  in  Carteret  and  Craven  and 
probably  all  .the  Swamp  Lands  of  that  region,  including 
Jones  and  Onslow,  the  claim  of  the  creditors  of  David  Al¬ 
lison  comes  up  in  1857.  And  that  of  the  University  is  also 
pressed. 

So  much  for  the  first  item, — the  character  of  the  title  un¬ 
der  which  the  Board  holds  the  Swamp  Lands.  It  is  imag¬ 
inable  that  a  sane  man  might  purchase  such  a  title,  but  it 
would  not  be  taken  as  the  best  evidence  of  sanity. 

This  review  of  the  claims  of  the  Board  makes  it  evident 
how  little  any  conjectural  estimate  of  the  quantity  of  Swamp 
Lands  owned  by  them  is  worth.  The  only  attempt  in  this 
direction  was  that  made  by  Mr.  Nash  in  1827,  the  statements 
reported  in  subsequent  reports,  messages  and  other  docu¬ 
ments,  being  derived  from  this.  And  he  acknowledges  that 
there  were  no  means  of  ascertaining  the  quantity,  but  puts 
it  down,  at  a  peradventure,  at  1,500,000  acres,  “  both  of  re¬ 
verted  and  vacant.”  We  have  seen  how  much  the  supposed 
reversions  amount  to,  but  even  including  these,  it  will  ap¬ 
pear  from  a  summation  of  all  the  individual  estimates 
which  he  gives,  that  we  should  have  but  little  more  than 
one-third  of  the  sum  mentioned,  or  about  half  a  million 
acres.  And  if  the  “  reverted  lands,”  so-called,  be  deducted, 
to  say  nothing  of  those  claimed  under  dormant  titles  re¬ 
cently  revived,  we  shall  have  a  further  reduction  of  the 
above  sum  to  the  extent  of  more  than  one-third. 

The  second  reason  assigned  for  the  unfortunate  results  of 


18 


Report  ox  the  Swamp  Lands. 


the  Swamp  Land  operations  of  the  Board,  was  the  doubtful 
character  of  the  lands  themselves.  The  only  sources  of  in¬ 
formation  on  this  subject  accessible  to  me  are,  1st,  the  re¬ 
ports,  so  much  referred  to  already,  of  engineers  and  Boards 
from  1823  onwards  (of  which  it  is  remarked  by  Dr.  Emmons 
in  his  report  for  18G0,  that  “  they  furnish  no  information  of 
value”);  2,  the  several  Geological  Reports  on  the  Swamp 
Lands  in  1852,  1858  and  1860  ;  3,  Mr.  Ruffin’s  “  sketches,” 
recently  published  by  the  State;  and  4,  memoranda  of  a 
week’s  trip  in  Hyde  county  made  by  myself  in  1862.  As  to 
the  first,  they  amount  to  little  more  than  the  report  of 
Mr.  Nash,  (there  being  but  a  few  observations  by  Ful¬ 
ton  and  Brozier  on  a  single  limited  tract)  and  the  very 
brief  one  by  Maj.  Gwynn.  The  biennial  reports  of  the 
Board  and  other  papers  on  the  subject  contain,  on  this  point, 
little  more  than  citations  from  these  two.  The  report  of 
Mr.  Nash,  as  we  have  seen,  was  very  favorable,  summing  up 
with  these  two  statements,  that  “all  the  Swamp  Lands  are 
susceptible  of  cultivation  except  a  comparatively  small 
portion  contiguous  to  tide  water,”  and  that  “  North  Carolina 
possesses  a  mine  of  wealth  in  her  Swamp  Lands,  which,  if 
rightly  managed,  may  be  made  a  source  of  great  and  lasting 
revenue  to  the  State.”  And  to  the  same  effect  Maj.  Gwynn — 
his  observations  being  confined,  however,  to  the  Hyde  and 
Carteret  tracts. 

In  estimating  the  value  of  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Nash  on 
this  part  of  the  subject,  and  in  making  that  opinion  the 
basis  of  their  calculations  and  their  procedure  in  undertak¬ 
ing  works  of  such  cost  and  magnitude,  it  does  not  seem  to 
have  been  sufficiently  considered  that,  however  able  he  may 
have  been  as  an  engineer,  (and  in  that  capacity,  he  seems  to 
have  given  entire  satisfaction  to  the  Board  which  emplo3red 
him)  he  did  not  pretend  to  any  special  qualifications,  chem¬ 
ical,  geological  or  agricultural,  for  the  investigation  of  the 
constitution  and  character  of  the  Swamp  soils,  and  that 
his  opinion  was  worth  as  much  as  that  of  any  other  intelli- 


W.  C,  Kerr,  State  Geologist. 


19 


gent  man  on  a  subject  with  which  he  had  no  special  acquaint¬ 
ance,  that,  and  no  more.  The  conclusions  of  Dr.  Emmons, 
who  may  be  supposed  to  have  had  the  necessary  scientific 
qualifications,  and  of  Mr.  Ruffin,  who  had  a  greater  practi¬ 
cal  acquaintance  with  the  agricultural  qualities  and  the  im¬ 
provement  of  Swamp  Lands  than  any  other  man  who  has 
written  on  that  subject  in  this  country,  are  evidently  more 
worthy  of  attention.  A  comparison  and  discussion  of  these 
several  reports,  together  with  ascertained  facts,  will  proba¬ 
bly  bring  us  near  the  truth  of  the  matter. 

The  general  term  Swamps,  or  Swamp  Lands,  includes  two 
kinds  of  land  widely  different  from  each  other,  which  may 
be  distinguished  as  alluvial  swamps  and  peat  swamps.  The 
first  are  low  wet  bottoms,  generally  covered  with  vegetation, 
lying  along  the  margin  of  water  courses  and  subject  to 
overflow ;  and  consists  therefore  of  accumulations  of  sedi¬ 
ment  with  vegetable  matter.  Such  soils  are  commonly  of 
great  fertility  and  the  question  of  their  value  turns  solely 
upon  that  of  their  drainage  and  protection  from  overflow. 
The  claims  of  the  Board  cover  only  two  considerable  tracts  of 
this  description,  and  those  doubtfully,  viz  :  the  Brown  and 
White  Marsh  tract  in  Columbus,  and  the  Big  Swamp  in 
Robeson,  containing  together  some  40,000  acres. 

The  other  species  which  we  have  denominated  peat 
swamps,  have  an  entirely  different  origin,  situation,  and 
structure.  As  to  situation,  they  occupy  ridges,  or  low  swells 
of  land,  from  the  crown  of  which  streams  flow  off  in  every 
direction  ;  and  as  to  origin  and  structure,  they  consist 
almost  entirely  of  accumulations  of  vegetable  matter,  grow¬ 
ing  and  decaying  upon  the  spot,  being  always  saturated 
with  water,  but  never  subject  to  overflow,  or  deposit ;  and 
containing,  therefore,  only  a  small  per  centage  of  inorganic 
matter.  Another  peculiarity  of  these  peat  swamps  is,  that 
the  highest  part  of  them  is  usually  occupied  by  one  or 
more  shallow  lakes.  The  value  of  such  swamps,  it  is  easy 
to  see,  depends  upon  two  points,  their  susceptibility  of  drain- 


20 


Report  on  the  Swamp  Lands. 


age,  and  the  constitution  of  their  peaty  soil,— the  propor¬ 
tion  of  earthy  ingredients.  Nearly  all  the  Swamp  Lands 
claimed  by  the  Board  are  of  this  character. 

And  first  of  the  drainage.  That,  of  course,  is  a  question 
for  the  engineers.  As  to  the  first  class  of  swamps,  it  is  ob¬ 
vious  that  it  must  be  generally  a  difficult  and  expensive 
operation.  It  is  plainly  so  in  the  case  of  the  only  two  in 
which  the  Board  are  interested,  as  will  be  apparent  on  ref¬ 
erence  to  the  reports  and  surveys  of  them  by  Fulton  and 
Brozier;  the  cost  per  acre  being  set  down  in  the  one 
case  at  $5,  and  in  the  other  at  §3.  The  second  class  of 
swamps,  it  is  evident  from  the  above  description,  may  be 
drained  with  facility,  having  in  most  cases,  at  least  in  their 
central  parts,  a  considerable  elevation  above  the  neighbor¬ 
ing  water  levels.  The  actual  amount  of  this  elevation  is 
given,  for  most  of  the  larger  tracts,  in  the  different  reports 
of  the  engineers.  This  facility  of  drainage,  however, 
exists  for  only  a  small  part  of  some  of  these  Swamps.  Thus 
Maj.  Gwynn,  who  surveyed  the  largest  of  them,  the  Hyde 
county  tract,  and  superintended  the  public  works  for  its  im¬ 
provement,  says  that,  of  this  immense  body  of  swamp,  com¬ 
prising  more  than  300,000  acres  of  the  Board’s  claim,  “  the 
only  portion  sufficiently  elevated  to  afford  a  lall  for  its 
drainage  ”  is  the  64,500  acres,  which  the  Board  had  selected 
for  its  experiment.  But  the  second,  and  most  important 
point  in  regard  to  these  peat  swamps,  is  the  constitution  of 
their  soil.  How  little  reliance  is  to  be  placed  upon  the  mere 
opinion  of  engineers,  or  any  one  else,  on  this  subject,  will  be 
apparent  on  reference  to  the  history  ot  the  drainage  of  the 
lake  flats,  as  they  are  called  ;  of  which  the  Board  of  Internal 
Improvement  remark,  in  the  report  for  IS27,  on  the  author¬ 
ity  of  Mr.  Nasli,  “  it  has  been  ascertained  that  the  land  cov¬ 
ered  by  most  of  the  lakes  which  have  been  examined  is  of 
the  very  first  quality,”  au  opinion  which  seems  to  Jiave  been 
entertained  also  by  Maj.  Gwynn,  (vide  his  report  of  1340.) 


W.  C.  Kerr,  State  Geologist. 


21 


It  was  this  statement,  and  the  recommendation  founded 
on  it,  it  will  be  remembered,  which  was  reported  by  subse- 
Boards,  that  led  to  the  drainage  of  Mattamuskeet  lake. 
But  the  “  60,000  acres  of  excellent  land  ”  turns  out  to  be  a 
sand  beach,  wholly  worthless  for  tillage.  It  is  not  of  course 
intimated  this  important  work  was  useless,  or  even  that  it 
was  not  worth  all  it  cost  to  the  inhabitants,  but  it  reclaimed 
no  land  for  the  Board.  Dr.  Emmons  has  two  reports  on  the 
Hyde  county  Swamps,  one  in  1858  and  one  in  1869,  but  he 
does  not  seem  to  have  made  a  second  examination  of  this 
district,  the  second  report  being  largely,  if  not  mainly,  a 
repetition  of  the  first.  And  it  is  worthy  of  mention  that 
in  both  he  confines  himself  almost  entirely  to  the  best  farm 
lands  which  had  been  long  under  cultivation  and  whose 
fertility  had  been  practically  demonstrated.  He  did  not 
penetrate  the  savannahs,  or  analyze  specimens  of  their  peat 
soils,  did  not  in  fact  leave  the  lake  shore.  And  perhaps  it 
was  not  necessary,  as  they  had  been  pronounced  by  the  best 
authority  incapable  of  drainage.  But  he  does  not  so  much  as 
mention  the  Pungo  lands,  on  which  the  Board  had  expended 
so  much  labor  and  money.  He  has  this  general  observa¬ 
tion  on  the  large  body  of  this  tract  extending  northward  and 
eastward  of  the  Mattamuskeet  region  :  “  That  part  of  the 

Albemarle  and  Pamlico  Swamp  which  extends  into  Tyrrell 
county  appears  to  rank  only  as  a  second  rate  soil.”  And  Mr. 
Ruffin  says  of  this  character  of  swamp,  “  the  savannahs,  or 
peat  swamps,  bare  of  trees,  are  worthless  for  any  purpose.” 
The  very  high  character  which  Dr.  Emmons  gives  the  Hyde 
county  lands  belongs  therefore  to  only  a  very  small  part  of 
this  tract.  It  must  be  observed,  also,  that  more  importance 
should  be  attached  to  the  bare  facts  and  analyses  than  to 
the  general  statements  which  he  gives;  which  are  to  be  re¬ 
ceived  with  considerable  abatement,  partly  on  account  of 
the  insufficient  extent  of  his  observations  and  experiments, 
and  partly  on  account  of  an  evident  reluctance  to  commu¬ 
nicate  disagreeable  information.  For  example,  in  the  re- 


22 


Report  on  the  Swamp  Lands. 


port  for  1852,  he  says  of  these  lands  generally,  “  I  regard 
them  as  among  the  most  fertile  and  valuable  in  the  State,” 
and  then  proceeds  to  describe  them  as  low  bottoms,  subject 
to  overflow  and  accumulations  of  sediment,  &c.,  which,  as 
we  have  seen,  is  no  description  of  these  lands  at  all. 

The  only  other  of  these  swamps  which  Dr.  Emmons  made 
the  subject  of  special  examination  is  the  Open  Ground  Prai¬ 
rie.  It  will  be  remembered  that,  before  undertaking  the 
improvement  of  this  tract,  Dr.  Emmons  visited  it,  at  the 
request  of  the  Board,  and  made,  they  say,  “  a  favorable  re¬ 
port.”  But  his  published  account  for  1852  cannot  be  so  re¬ 
garded,  the  Open  Ground  being  then  described  as  consist¬ 
ing  almost  entirely  “  of  peaty  matter,”  and  as  “  unproduct¬ 
ive  for  want  of  inorganic  matter.”  Nor  does  his  report  for 
1860  improve  its  character.  In  that  he  speaks  of  the  “rim 
of  the  Prairie”  only  as  “richly  constituted.”  And  Mr. 
Ruffin,  who  visited  the  tract  after  the  canal  was  dug,  puts 
down  the  whole  tract  as  not  worth  ten  cents  per  acre.  And 
we  have  seen  that  2,000  acres  on  the  canal  with  this  privi¬ 
lege  of  location,  was  sold  by  the  Board  at  twenty-five  cents 
per  acre. 

The  Dover  Swamp  is  spoken  of  by  Dr.  Emmons  as  worth¬ 
less.  His  report  on  the  other  tracts  is  very  meagre  and  un¬ 
satisfactory. 

The  inevitable  conclusion  which  any  one  will  reach,  who 
examines  all  the  documents  on  the  subject,  is  that  the  Swamp 
Lands  are  simply  vast  beds  of  peat,  the  only  portions  of 
them  having  any  agricultural  value  consisting  of  a  few 
belts  and  ridges,  constituting  generally  the  elevated  and 
narrow  margins  of  the  interior  lakes  and  the  outer  fringes 
of  some  of  them  ;  these  being  almost  invariably  indicated  by 
thegrowth  upon  them  and  having  generally  a  sub-soil  of  clay. 

And  the  general  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter,  as  nearly 
as  can  be  ascertained  with  the  existing  lights  on  the  subject, 
seems  to  be,  that  the  Swamp  Lands  owned  by  the  Board 
amount  probably  to  less  than  half  a  million  acres,  that  their 


W.  C.  Kerr,  State  Geologist. 


23 


title  to  a  large  part  of  this  is  doubtful ;  that  only  a  small 
proportion  of  the  whole  is  susceptible  of  drainage  ;  and  of 
that  much  the  larger  part  is  not  worth  draining,  and  that 
the  erroneous  views,  which  have  so  widely  prevailed  in  re¬ 
gard  to  the  whole  subject,  are  due  in  a  large  measure  to  the 
hasty  and  insufficient  examination,  and  the  inaccurate  re¬ 
port  of  the  first  engineer  by  whom  the  Swamp  Lands  were 
surveyed. 

I  append  a  tabular  statement  of  the  principal  tracts 
claimed  by  the  Board,  showing  their  location,  number  of 
acres,  by  whom  and  when  surveyed,  &c. : 


NAME. 

LOCATION. 

No.  of  Acres. 

1 

Surveyor. 

|  Date  of 

Survey/ 

Hyde  County  Swamp, 
Bug  River . . 

Hyde,  Tyrrell,  Washington, 

316,480 

41,000 

94,000 

8,320 

87,680 

6,000 

Maj  Gwynn, 

1839 

White  Oak, . 

Brozier, . 

1827 

1827 

1839 

Cat  Fish, . 

t  < 

Open  Ground, . 

Waccamaw . 

Carteret, . 

Maj.  Gwynn, 

White  &  Brown  M’rsh. 

29,000 

14,000 

Brozier . 

1823 

1827 

Big  Swamp, . 

Robeson, . 

<  < 

Holly  Shelter, . 

New  Hanover, . 

58,240 

<  c 

1827 

Angola  Bay, . 

New  Hanover  and  Duplin, . 

50,000 

<  ( 

.... 

Dover, . 

75,000 

60,262 

<  ( 

Dismal . 

Currituck,  Perq.,  Pasquotank 

( « 

1828 

Date  Due 


It - 

,,,20'iflK- 

| 

JUN  1  0  ’44 

990V  7  r, 

1  49 

pAF2  *  ** 

1 

1 

Form  335 — 2511 — 7-35 — B-M.Co. 

